Author Topic: Satanic MSNBC (Read 1152 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** April 07, 2013, 02:08:29 AM »

Children don't belong to parents:

Woman corrupts daughter's mind shamelessly:

But trads don't want to to talk about who RUNS the media.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2013, 02:16:14 AM »

Something is near, very near.

They're just coming out and saying so many things now, not bothering with subterfuge anymore.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2013, 02:37:30 AM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Something is near, very near.

They're just coming out and saying so many things now, not bothering with subterfuge anymore.

I can hardly keep track of it, anymore. At work tonight I was talking to my co-workers about North Korea and how one consequence of an attack by the North Koreans on the US would be a high-intensity conventional war unlike any that has been seen for generations. My co-worker asked, "Did you hear about the new law they are discussing about drafting women ?" And then it dawned on me that I had completely forgotten that the US military now allows and even encourages women in combat positions. When the news broke, it was too surreal, such that there wasn't much impact until I heard this poor irreligious girl talking about it today (even she thought it was wrong). What utter insanity in itself ! And now people are, I don't doubt it, discussing a law that requires women to register for conscription...

Could you imagine your daughters or nieces or those of your friends being drafted and then dying or being tortured to death in an Asian land war ? It would be positively sinful to coöperate with such an unjust law. I don't see how there's any way around that, though I imagine that the Conciliarists will attempt to inflate a supposed grey area such that it will be considered outrageous and extreme behaviour for us to tell another man that he is a despicable coward and an embarrassment to fathers everywhere for allowing his daughter to go to the front to get torn to pieces by artillery shells or to have her face blown off when trying to clear a building. For all of history, men fought precisely to protect their women from such things.

Think about it now and talk to your loved ones now before the masters* of mass culture and politics scramble the public's minds via psychological warfare. Ten years ago, the majority of the US was strongly opposed to gαy 'marriage.' Fifteen years ago, nobody could imagine that this would even be a topic for legislation. Five years from now, publicly opposing it might be considered a hate crime. Real human power is an incredible thing. Watch and pray.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2013, 02:40:45 AM »

Indeed PereJoseph. It's enough to drive one to despair. All of it.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2013, 07:25:01 AM »

After those liberal bastards got rid of Pat Buchanan I only wish that media corporation goes to the obscurity to where it belongs.

Next one to get rid of: Fox News :wink:

Exilenomore · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2013, 08:25:53 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Think about it now and talk to your loved ones now before the masters* of mass culture and politics scramble the public's minds via psychological warfare. Ten years ago, the majority of the US was strongly opposed to gαy 'marriage.' Fifteen years ago, nobody could imagine that this would even be a topic for legislation. Five years from now, publicly opposing it might be considered a hate crime. Real human power is an incredible thing. Watch and pray.

If television propaganda would be given twenty years to make pederasty accepted in society, you would have people protesting against an impending 'legalisation' of it at the end, and they would be called bigots by the media and the unhappy, indoctrinated multitudes.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2013, 08:55:24 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

If television propaganda would be given twenty years to make pederasty accepted in society, you would have people protesting against an impending 'legalisation' of it at the end, and they would be called bigots by the media and the unhappy, indoctrinated multitudes.

Don't worry they already made ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and race-mixing "moral" and "normal." I am sure they will make pedophilia and beastiality "normal" eventually.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #7 on:** April 07, 2013, 11:27:09 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Iuvenalis
Something is near, very near.

They're just coming out and saying so many things now, not bothering with subterfuge anymore.

I can hardly keep track of it, anymore. At work tonight I was talking to my co-workers about North Korea and how one consequence of an attack by the North Koreans on the US would be a high-intensity conventional war unlike any that has been seen for generations. My co-worker asked, "Did you hear about the new law they are discussing about drafting women ?" And then it dawned on me that I had completely forgotten that the US military now allows and even encourages women in combat positions. When the news broke, it was too surreal, such that there wasn't much impact until I heard this poor irreligious girl talking about it today (even she thought it was wrong). What utter insanity in itself ! And now people are, I don't doubt it, discussing a law that requires women to register for conscription...

Could you imagine your daughters or nieces or those of your friends being drafted and then dying or being tortured to death in an Asian land war ? It would be positively sinful to coöperate with such an unjust law. I don't see how there's any way around that, though I imagine that the Conciliarists will attempt to inflate a supposed grey area such that it will be considered outrageous and extreme behaviour for us to tell another man that he is a despicable coward and an embarrassment to fathers everywhere for allowing his daughter to go to the front to get torn to pieces by artillery shells or to have her face blown off when trying to clear a building. For all of history, men fought precisely to protect their women from such things.

Think about it now and talk to your loved ones now before the masters* of mass culture and politics scramble the public's minds via psychological warfare. Ten years ago, the majority of the US was strongly opposed to gαy 'marriage.' Fifteen years ago, nobody could imagine that this would even be a topic for legislation. Five years from now, publicly opposing it might be considered a hate crime. Real human power is an incredible thing. Watch and pray.

As with any unlawful government, it is necessary for a Roman Catholic to submit to the system only for those laws which just or morally neutral. Moreover, it is wise to abstain from any meaningful degree of participation in the perpetuation of that government, either through the civic exercise voting or standing for office) or armed national defense (which must not be conflated with local defense against crime). Unfortunately, because Catholic dogma accepts the concept of a just war, one cannot claim conscientious objector status so, if a draft comes, men (and women it seems) of good faith will have to decide whether they'll submit to the law or not. Myself, I will refuse.

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2013, 01:03:58 PM »

Actually, the concept of a just war does involve conscientious objection nowadays, since most modern wars are unjust, in one way or another. Catholics in 1941 said it is a matter for individual consciences to ascertain whether the war being fought is just or unjust, and other factors influencing it, and if conscientious objection is the right decision or no.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2013, 03:08:49 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Actually, the concept of a just war does involve conscientious objection nowadays, since most modern wars are unjust, in one way or another. Catholics in 1941 said it is a matter for individual consciences to ascertain whether the war being fought is just or unjust, and other factors influencing it, and if conscientious objection is the right decision or no.

I was actually referring to the legal criteria by which one could be classified as a non-combatant, and therefore exempt from military service, by the US government. Per 401 US 437, Gillette v. United States, the majority opinion by the Supreme Court held:

'The exemption for those who oppose "participation in war in any form" applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to those who object to participation in a particular war only, even if the latter objection is religious in character.'

More specifically:

'It should be emphasized that our cases explicating the "religious training and belief" clause of § 6(j), or cognate clauses of predecessor provisions, are not relevant to the present issue. The question here is not whether these petitioners' beliefs concerning war are "religious" in nature. Thus, petitioners' reliance on United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163, and Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333, is misplaced. Nor do we decide that conscientious objection to a particular war necessarily falls within § 6(j)'s expressly excluded class [Footnote 13] of "essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code." Rather, we hold that Congress intended to exempt persons who oppose participating in all war -- "participation in war in any form" -- and that persons who object solely to participation in a particular war are not within the purview of the exempting section, even though the latter objection may have such roots in a claimant's conscience and personality that it is "religious" in character.'

My point was simply that there would be no appeal to CO status, unless one objected to all war. Since Catholic dogma does make allowance for morally just warfare, a Catholic could not truthfully gain CO status on religious grounds.